A V INDUSTRIES Vs. TRIPATHI CHITRA MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.

(2.) THE plaintiff-M/s A.V. Industries has filed this suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against defendant No. 1, M/s. Tripathi Chitra Mandir and defendant No. 2. Shri Ashutosh mani Tnpathi, sole proprietor of defendant No. 1, on the allegations that the plaintiff is a partnership firm only registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its registered office at Delhi and Smt. Sushil Sharma is one of the registered partners and is able and competent to depose to the facts of this case and is authourised to file and institute the present suit and sign and verify the plaint; that defendant No. 1 had been carrying on the business of film exhibition and is running a cinema as sole proprietor under the name and style of defendants No. 1 which is also business name of defendant No. 2 and also the name of the cinema; that the plaintiff has been carrying on business of film distribution in Delhi-U.P. and the parties are members of the Motion Pictures Association, Delhi, which Association has got its own Memorandum and Articles of Association and has framed various rules thereunder; that by means of an agreement arrived at Delhi on 14th February, 1983 the parties agreed that the plaintiff was given playing time and the right to book pictures for exhibition at the cinema of the defendant at the cost, risk and responsibility of the plaintiff for 52 weeks on the terms and conditions incorporated therein; that thereafter by means of another agreement of the same date i.e. l4th February, 1983 the plaintiff agreed to advance a total sum of Rs. 45, 426,32.00P and in the manner mentioned therein and the theatre hire per week to be charged by the defendant at Rs. 4,630.00: that by means of another agreement of the same date, i.e l4th February, 1933 and in continuation of the aforesaid agreement, it was further agreed upon between the parties that the plaintiff would have the option to get the period of 52 weeks extended for another term of one to two years by giving one month notice and that clause 8 contained in the first agreement dated l4th February, 1983 regarding the termination of the agreement by giving one month's notice would not be exercised by the defendant unless all the accounts with the plaintiff are settled by the defendants to the satisfaction of the plantiff; that the defendants were to screen only such pictures as were supplied be the plaintiff at the cost, risk and responsibility of the plaintiff and the defendant was to charge only weekly theatre hire of Rs. 5,000.00; that for supplying pictures to the defendant, the plaintiff booked pictures in advance under agreement with various film distributors and paid huge advances to them as is the practice in the film trade; that the plaintiff started executing the contract with effect from 18th February, 1983 as per agreed terms and conditions and also paid advance amount of Rs. 45,426,30.00P; that the plaintiff was to extend the period for another 52 weeks and hence vide agreement dated 2nd February, 1984 arrived at Delhi between the plaintiff and the defendants, the period of playing time was mutually extended for another 52 weeks on the same terms and conditions and in continuation to the period which had commenced on 18th February, 1983 and it was further agreed that the plaintiff shall have the option to extend the period for another term of one or two years by giving one month's notice in advance; that as before the plaintiff continued booking several pictures and advanced huge sums to the film distributors on that account; that the plaintiff was surprised and shocked to receive latter dated 29th October, 1984 from the defendant thereby informing the plaintiff that agreement was cancelled from 30th November, 1984; that the defendant could not cancel the agreement as per terms of contract between the parties from time to time because till 25th October, 1984 a sum of Rs. 50,722,36.00P was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on account of distributor's share accrued from the pictures supplied by the plaintiff and exhibited at the cinema of the defendants; that there were other dues also which the plaintiff was entitled to as detailed in para 11 of the plaint; that the defendants had wrongly terminated the agreement; that the plaintiff has a right to avail the playing time till 17th February, 1985 and further for a period of two years thereafter under the option clause; that now disputes have arisen between the parties as to the right of the plaintiff to supply the pictures under the aforesaid agreement; that the disputes are liable to be settled by means of arbitration as per agreement dated 14th February, 1983 under clause 9; that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence it has been prayed that the agreement may be got filed in the Court and the matter in dispute may be referred to the arbitrator mentioned in the agreement and hence, this petition.